MASTER SHIVARAJ SINGH Vs. BANKEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the landlord of an accommodation situated at Gandhi Bazzar in the Town Area of Haldaur, in the district of Bijnor. THE respondent No. 1 is the tenant in the accommodation. THE appellant made an application under Section 3 of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for premission to file a suit for ejectment against the respondent No. 1. THE permission prayed for was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Against that order a revision was filed by respondent No. 1 which was allowed by the Commissioner. THE matter was taken up to the State Government by the appellant by means of a representation and the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 7-F of the Act set aside the order of the Commissioner and granted the permission prayed for by its order dated March 22, 1971. THE respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the State Government. THE writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on May 10, 1974, on two grounds-(1) that no revision under Section 7-F was maintainable, and (2) that the State Government had not properly considered the need of the respondent No. 1. It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge against which the present special appeal has been preferred.

(2.) BEFORE us the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the correctness of both the grounds on which the writ petition was allowed. It was urged that the representation made by the appellant to the State Government was maintainable and that the State Government had considered the need of both the parties and it was only after a comparison of their needs that it came to the conclusion that the permission prayed for should be granted. In order to appreciate the first submission it would be necessary to state in brief the ground on which the learned single Judge took the view that no revision before the State Government was maintainable. Section 1 of the Act was amended by U. P. Act No. 44 of 1948 whereby sub-section (2-A) was added which reads as under :- "(2-A) It shall apply to every Municipality, Notified Area contiguous to a municipal or cantonment area and to areas situate within two miles of such Municipality or Notified Area: Provided that the Provincial Government may by notification in the official Gazette declare that it shall cease to apply to any area or shall apply in whole or part to any other area, as may be specified." The Act was not applicable to the town Area of Haldaur. Acting under sub-section (2-A) of Section 1 notification No. 7202/GEO-8-46 dated December 24, 1948, published in U. P. Gazette dated January 1, 1949, Part I, was issued whereby Section 3 of the Act was applied to Haldaur Town Area. The submission which prevailed with the learned Single Judge was that since Section 3 alone has been applied to Haldaur Town Area and not Section 7-F it was not open to the State Government to set aside the order of the Commissioner. The same submission was reiterated by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 before us. We are, however, unable to agree with this submission. At the time when the aforesaid notification was issued, relevant portion of Section 3 read as under:- "3. Restrictions on eviction:- ... ... ... No suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds:- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..." By Section 4 of the Amending Act No. 24 of 1952 the following amendments were made in the section : "(a) The original Section 3 was renumbered as Section 3 (1). (b) The words "subject to any order passed under sub-section (3)" were inserted at the beginning of the section. (c) The following were added as sub-sections (2) to (4):- (2) The party aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate granting or refusing to grant the permission referred to in sub-section (1) may within 30 days from the date of the order or the date on which it is communicated to him whichever is later, apply to the Commissioner to revise the order. (3) The Commissioner shall, as far as may be, hear the application within six weeks from the date of its making and it he is satisfied that the District Magistrate has acted illegally or with material irregularity or has wrongly refused to act, he may confirm or set aside the order of the District Magistrate. (4) The order of the Commissioner passed under sub-section (3) shall subject to any order passed by the State Government under Section 7-F be final." These sub-sections (2) to (4) were again substituted by U. P. Act XVII of 1954. The said Act also introduced certain changes in Clauses (a) and (c) of Section 3 (1) and added a new Clause (g) with which we are not concerned. The relevant portion of sub-section (1) of Section 3 and sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of the Act as they now stand are as follows:- "Section 3 (1) Restrictions on eviction.- Subject to any order passed under sub-section (3), no suit shall without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the, following grounds:- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) Where any application has been made to the District Magistrate for permission to sue a tenant for eviction from any accommodation and the District Magistrate grants or refuses to grant the permission, the party aggrieved by his order may within 30 days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, apply to the Commissioner to revise the order. (3) The Commissioner shall hear the application made under sub-section (2), as far as may be, within six weeks from the date of making it, and he may, if he is not satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the District Magistrate or as to the regularity of proceedings held before him alter or revise his order, or making such other order as may be just and proper. (4) The order of the Commissioner under sub-section (3) shall, subject to any order passed by the State Government under Section 7-F, be final."

(3.) THERE is another way of looking at the problem facing us. On a plain reading of Section 7-F it would appear that the power given to the State Government under the said Section is not dependant upon any representation being made by the aggrieved party. A representation by the aggrieved party is one of the recognised methods to bring to the notice of the higher authority the error committed by a subordinate authority. In our view Section 7-F gives the State Government a power to call for the record of any case in which orders have been passed by the subordinate authorities under any one of the sections referred to in Section 7-F irrespective of the situation or the location of the accommodation in respect of which the order had been passed by the subordinate authorities.